So the lying tossers are taking away our child benefit after all. Bloody Osbourne has just given every family with a higher rate tax payer a £3k paycut before tax.

Despite saying that he wouldn't do it before the election

Before the bastards were elected they were saying that the Tories would let families where one parent works share their tax allowances.

Obviously they didn't bother with that and to make matters worse they are now punishing families with a parent that looks after their kids again.

If 2 parents each earn £ 40K a year, they pay less tax (because they each have an allowance) and will still get full child benefit.

Wheras a family where one parent works and earns £ 80k a year, pay loads more tax (because they can't share allowances) and they lose their child benefit.

What happened to family values and the big society??? It's patently unfair.

A family with a parent earning £ 44k loses child benefit, but a family with 2 parents earning £ 80k between them keeps it? Idiots.
Cameron liked to talk about labour stealth taxes? This has a bigger impact on my family than any of those.

So the lying tossers are taking away our child benefit after all. Bloody Osbourne has just given every family with a higher rate tax payer a £3k paycut before tax.

Despite saying that he wouldn't do it before the election

Before the bastards were elected they were saying that the Tories would let families where one parent works share their tax allowances.

Obviously they didn't bother with that and to make matters worse they are now punishing families with a parent that looks after their kids again.

If 2 parents each earn £ 40K a year, they pay less tax (because they each have an allowance) and will still get full child benefit.

Wheras a family where one parent works and earns £ 80k a year, pay loads more tax (because they can't share allowances) and they lose their child benefit.

What happened to family values and the big society??? It's patently unfair.

A family with a parent earning £ 44k loses child benefit, but a family with 2 parents earning £ 80k between them keeps it? Idiots.
Cameron liked to talk about labour stealth taxes? This has a bigger impact on my family than any of those.

I hope all of the people that voted for these tossers are very happy.

This one will hit us too NFS and, whilst I have said often that I was happy to pay a bit more tax to sort out the country for my kids generation, I think this is a very blunt instrument - your examples make the point beautifully. I heard a caller on a radio show give her personal example, she is a widow earning £45k bringing up 3 kids. She will lose her child benefit yet her sister and brother in law who earn c.£40k each will not!!! HOW IS THAT FAIR?

I expected this to happen tbh and I hoped they would allow a sharing of personal tax allowances between married couples (I work but my wife looks after our kids) but I won't be holding my breath!!

It would be fairer to raise the tax percentage on higher earners that do what they propose. I fall into that category so I would end up losing out to a similar amount but at least that would be fair to all so I would not complain.

I would also imagine £44,000 doesn't go as far in the south as it does up here.

Imagine you live in a semi-detached house next to an identical family . The two families have three kids. You earn £45k and the wife looks after the kids. Next door earn £85k between them and they get £2500 in benefits to help out.

Imagine you live in a semi-detached house next to an identical family . The two families have three kids. You earn £45k and the wife looks after the kids. Next door earn £85k between them and they get £2500 in benefits to help out.

Exactly, don't forget that the couple next door earning £ 85k between them also get double the tax allowances of the family where one parent earns £ 45k.

No kiddies yet here but it's definitely part of (her) plan so we too will be hit by this.

They really need to think about this because it is in no way fair that if your neighbours both work bringing home up to £43,999 each they would still qualify whereas if you're a sole earner on £44,000 you don't. But then, since when was any government about "fair"?

Finally, it will always be the "middle" that takes the brunt. That's you and I my friends. Sometimes I wonder why I bother putting in a days work!

I guessed things like this would be on the cards, and I would not be surprised if there was more to come. The thin end of the wedge, what next in a few years time, means tested State pensions, so much for universality of certain 'allowances' (not benefits).

I cancelled the Z4 partly because of nervousness and a resigned expectation over this sort of thing, a slow chipping away and erosion of allowances and reliefs and an increase in taxes. Coupled with no pay rises for a couple of years and inflation above 3% spells tougher times ahead.

Fortunately the Child Allowance cut does not apply for a few years (2013) when my youngest will be 17, so it doesn't effect me much. I do agree though that the Tories have made a fist of it and it has a large element of unfairness about it.

I can always remember getting the first child benefit and being bemused as to why it was just handed out.

Hopefully, to make it feel morally right, by the time its taken away ( I have 2 kids so thats 2 tanks of v power a month gone), they'll have sorted the beneifts system - I certainly like the concept of a univeral benefit so the dossing scumbags who take the piss lose out.

I know a few families where the child benefit goes striaght into a savings account for the kids when they are older, but for others it might be the thin edge of a wedge.

And come the next election, we'll have had some nice midlde class tax cuts to keep us sweet.

I have no problem with taking child benefits off higher rate taxpayers (I am one btw) - it was an obvious cut both economically and politically.

But - and its a big but - Oik has completely arsed it up. It would be very simple to base the entitlement on household income - the entire tax credits system already does this successfully. But oh no, tax credits was a Labour invention and therefore devil spawn.

So instead Oik does something thats patently unfair, anti-marriage, anti-middle class and the polar opposite of what he supposedly stands for by penalising women who look after their kids.

Get the popcorn out folks, this one will run and run until Oik has to change his mind.

I agree with the need to consider all options, its the entitlement thresholds which haven't been thought through in this case..

To quote: "The IFS drew attention to perverse consequences of the measures, which will mean a one-earner family with an income of £45,000 losing all its child benefit while a much better-off couple with an income of £40,000 each would keep the money."

I'd suggest writing to your MP to register your displeasure.. Far more effective than whinging on a motoring forum ;-)

Despite that, if he said he wouldn't do this and has then he should be removed from post or held accountable. It sounds like he has been intentionally fraudulent and if so, should face the legal repercussions.

Fat. Fucking. Chance.

Can't wait till the Labour contingent come along and 'told you so' because to be fair, they did. I'm in the unique position of being able to say that I think both Labour and Tory are lying, useless sacks of shit.

Even if your not bothered or affected to much you must see how unfair this is

I have a small mortgage and have always lived within my means but whatever way you turn this my family and a million others will have £1400 less spending power when the cuts take effect. This will have a knock on effect to lots of others as I won't be able to spend that £1400 eating out, weekends away buying electrical goods and so on.

Edit. Just read that back and it sounds like I'm spending our child benefit on all that shit. We actually save it, but I intend to continue the savings from my own earnings. That's what I won't be able to spend.

Suggestions on how else to say over £1bn on a postcard then please....

Remember that what we're trying to cut here is the deficit, not spending. SOrry if I keep explaining this on various posts, but its important that people can ignore the politics and understand the economics. The deficit is the gap between our income (tax receipts) and outgoings - and as we haven't suddenly started spending an additional £180bn a year we weren't doing before, its obvious that the gap is tax receipts falling through the floor due to the recession.

Think about it. We lost the tax paid on the vast profits from the city. We lost the tax paid by the million people who lost their jobs. We lost the tax paid on all the things these people used to buy. Never mind basic maths and sanity like this, we know it to be true because we cut £20bn off the deficit before the election thanks to the end of the recession bringing in higher than expected tax revenues.

Its much easier to grow away the deficit than cut it away. £1bn of aditional tax receipts means growth. Which means more people in work spending money. Which means more people in work etc etc. Or you can cut £1bn worth of jobs, lose that tax revenue, pay more benefits and away we go again.

So how would I raise the £1bn? Well I wouldn't object to 40% taxpayers like me losing child benefit if it was done on income. Make is that that households earning north of the 40% threshhold lose the benefi and you wouldn't be haing this discussion as it would be seen as fair.

But if Osborne wanted the cash, why did he let Vodafone off its £6bn tax bill? Why is he hacking so many tax inspector jobs at HMRC? Its almost as if the government has no interest in collecting taxes from the fabulously wealthy and wants to make the rest of us suffer instead. A Tory government. That can't be the case.....